Fear is the common currency of dictatorships: they are afraid of the openess and influence of the outside world and they fear being wiped out by their own people when those people finally rise up to throw off the dictatorship. So they try to respond in the only way they know how: by creating fear in others.

Russia has been an economically backward feudal state for the past 500 years, made formidable only by its sheer size and the will of some brutally effective leaders (Peter the Great, Stalin). Being "formidable" is just the point. What about benefiting the populace, which is presumably the basis for all government under any reasonable theory of government? Not so much.

We would hope that the goons in the Kremlin would look to the example of China, which has managed a brilliant balancing act of placating its people with economic growth and behaving (not neglecting all of our reasonable compliants about Darfur and Zimbabwe) relatively responsibly on the world stage. No such luck; the Kremlin thinks that the only way to impress its vodka-swilling masses is to go and stomp on some small neighbor who had the nerve to pursue what every people on earth basically want: a western-syle, open society.

There is in effect no difference between 2008 and 1968; we have a Europe incapable of an appropriate response, with the helpful French attempting a "third way" by agreeing with unseemly haste to an acceptance of Russia's "sphere of influence", which will in good time extend to Poland, the Ukraine, Belarus...hell, why not all the way to Berlin. Welcome to 1945, folks.

You don't have to be a fan of George W. Bush to understand the desperate need for decisive, even aggressive leadership on the part of the US. Of course, the lame-duck administration shows few signs of providing that. Even more unfortunately the chattering classes in the West and especially Europe have no appetite for that at all. They feel it is much more productive to spend their time and energy bashing the US over global warming, or debating how to punish the Irish for daring to exercise their democratic right to vote against the EU treaty. Anything to avoid having to go out and contront the giant bear that is eating their neighbors, one at a time.

It is really stupid to think that everyone on earth wants a western style open society. It's hugely ignorant, and typical of an arrogant westerner.

Furthermore, this whole thing is not Russian aggression. It's very simple:

1) South Ossetia wants to be independant of Georgia

2) Georgia does not want South Ossetia to be independant

3) Gerogia attacked South Ossetia

4) Russia, a South Ossetian ally, stepped in to protect her.

5) Que western media to spin this as the old soviet bear gobbling up her neighbours.

If you remember, the west did the same thing in the Balkans when little ethnic minorties wanted independance from larger states that happened to be Russian allies. Yet the west was a hero in the Balkans and Russia is the great evil in the Caucasus.

not a Westerner I assume? If you are, what qualifies you as an 'informed' Westerner? If not, then you are just arguing that only 'you' (whatever that is) has the expertise to opine on this. Which is it, smart guy?

1.) true

2.) true

3.) false. South Ossetia has claimed independence for the past 15 or so years, and an uneasy truce has prevailed. A week ago the the Russian's intervened military, which is an unprecedented move - an invasion by post-Soviet Russia - of a sovereign state.

4.) The Russian's have now made it clear that they intend to dictate foreign policy for their neighbors, including Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, etc.

5.) to compare this situation to Bosnia or Kosovo - where the Serbs massacred and raped thosands and had been doing this without the intervention of the internatinoal community fo years. When NATO, led by the U.S., finally acted, the killing was finally stopped.

For you not to understand the difference means that you must be morally, factually, and intellectually obvlivious. Smart guy.

seem to indicate that Georgia did attack Ossetia. Or is your claim that the Russians arrived first?

Russians entered the Roki tunnel well after the first attack on the city. The Russian intervention that you claim, was a response to that shelling beforehand. Since they do recognize Ossetia in a limited sense, and actualy had a compact declaring they would defend Ossetia in case of attack, I don't see how they could have done otherwise.

Ms Applebaums histrionics aside, Russia certainly isn't afraid of much these days. Rich in petro dollars and in control of much of the E.U's energy they have little to fear.

I read in Hitchens column about the "dithering" that preceded the NATO involvement in Kosovo and was struck by the fact that the Russians had no intentions of letting the situation devolve into that carnal.

The near hysteria that surrounds Russian involvement in Ossetia only illustrates how truly far we HAVEN'T come. We are still trying to cast Russia as an evil, godless empire bent on world domination. When in reality they are doing no less what any prudent and responsable government would do. To sit idly by while a city full of Russians (passports I know, still Russians) are rocketed while you have the means to stop it, borders on criminal. We did as much in Grenada. If I remember correctly the U.N. and Britain both accused us breaking in'tl law. All in all the U.S. is hardly in a position to cry foul.

I could be wrong, but I just don't see Russia taking over Georgia. If that were the case why not occupy the bases in Gori rather than destroy them? What would have kept them from occupying Tbilisi on the pretext of securing the peace? As a fait accompli there would have been little we or the E.U. could have done. Certainly nothing militarily.

Well,, they weren't Russian', at least not until the Russians decided to issue them passports in order to make a play to slap down Georgia.

"Still trying to cast the Russians as an evil...empire" Are you suggesting that they weren't?

"Prudent and responsible" That is rich. This is the equivalent of the US shelling, bombing, and invading Vancouver, BC over a dispute about indigenous fishing rights.

This all feels a lot like 1938 to me. The utter cluelessness of some of you folks, the inability to distinguish mostly right from completely wrong, is frightening.

Once again, freetrader, everyone else is wrong, and you alone are right. Aren't we fortunate to have you here to guide the rest of us toward the light?

Your arrogance and contemptuousness is beyond appalling. Since when did you become an authority on foreign affairs? I thought you were merely a cog in an internationalist financial wheel.

American Bottom...once again you have foiled my plans for global domination!

Actually, political and international issues tend to be the issues that move me to post.

But...since when did YOU become an expert on foreign affairs?

"I could be wrong, but I just don't see Russia taking over Georgia."

<link>

<link>

Freetrader is right. And Russians were absolutely in S. Ossetia before Georgia was - they were "peacekeepers," who made sure that the S. Ossetian militias were armed, and encouraged them to attack Georgian positions, which they did, which in turn caused Saakashveli to respond.

also, <link>

I acknowledged the passport issue in my post. Having said that, the Ossetians were quite free to decline those passports. This would tend to illustrate just where their loyalties lie. As for the "fishing rights" analogy it would only be accurate if the Canadians had shelled Anchorage first.

Like most (neo-cons, reactionarys, hawks, empire builders...pick a category or label of your choosing) you ignore any facet of the conflict other than what this could potentialy mean to the U.S. goals in the area. Being there were a contingent of Russian peacekeepers in Tskhinvili who have been there for at least a decade, how can anyone dispute the need or right of Russia to aid those peacekeepers and more importantly honor a pact they made with the autonomous government to protect them if attack?

Conveniently neglecting to mention the first strike on Tskhinvili, or worse, insisting it was a response to some Russian aggresion is naive at best and disingenuous most likely.

As of today the Russians are moving out of the area of Gori and have never entered Tbilisi. So again the '38 analogy falls flat. Your assuption that Russia is the Russia of Stalin is a misnomer and reveals a complete cynicism that seems prevalent among the media,electorate, and the unimformed public.

The term "disproportionate" is bandied about and the west seems to think any response on Russia's part would have been unwarranted therefore "disproportionate." I can only say that if Saakashvili were in chains, being paraded thru the streets of Tskhinvili in a modern version of a passion play ..well I would agree. But he is still at the helm of his country though I am sure some of his own are wondering if they were correct in selling their votes to the U.S. in the first place.

Mick 57,

- Protecting Russian Peacekeepers? You hit the hypocrasy of Russian policy in Ossetia right on the head in your own sentance and you don't even realize it. No country can legitimately claim to be providing an impartial peacekeeping mission in a region, and simultaniously have a tacit defense agreement with one of the two opposing sides! But you said it yourself, they had to honor that commitment.

Russia was also alone in recognizing the autonomy of Ossetia\Abhkazzia. Now, I personally think that those regions should not be part of Georgia if that is what they wish, and that Georgia bears a lot of the blame for trying to keep them. But Russia exacerbated the situation by pushing for autonomy, (not, mind you, international recognition for that autonomy, just a bolstering of the Ossetian militia) even as they cast their military shadow over the region. By your own definition, this was a Russian ploy to start a conflict.

Russia is not withdrawing from inland Georgia yet. They said it themselves. <link>

For the millionth time, if you think that the true issue at stake in this war (from either Russia or Georgia or the US's perspective) is the fate of Ossetia, then you are wilfully ignoring the bigger picture. You really shouldn't be accusing other people of ignorance if you can't at least acknowledge the larger strategic picture in which this is all unfolding.

jwschmidt: No where in my post did I accuse anyone of ignorance, or have I resorted to juvenile tactics as in pointing out spelling errors

As for protecting their peacekeepers I can't think of any nation that would do any less. U.S. included. I think the same could be said for our troops in Kosovo ( which no one recognizes either except the U.S.) And as for the tacit agreement it included Georgia as well. If Ossetian forces had attacked Georgia they would have been obliged to protect them as well.

As for the "big picture", I certainly appreciate the ramifications of a Russian take over of Georgia proper. But on the other hand if Russia adheres to it's pledge of removing it's troops and withdrawing to South Ossetia the prior hysteria and hand wringing would prove to be unjustified angst on the part of alarmist crowd.

Lastly, two quick points, Russian impartiality? I am not so naive to think they or anyone else is impartial in these situations. And as for hypocrisy, I could point out our own and instances of such in every E.U. members past foreign policy initiatives but that is only counterproductive to my way of thinking.

And though the Russians may not be pulling back as quickly and in the manner that we would like they are pulling back in compliance with the ceasefire signed and creating a buffer zone that they legitimize with prior U.N. sanctioned events. So it may not be to our time and choosing, but it is getting done.

Sorry about the ignorance thing, wrong author.

But what you are saying about the peacekeepers is false. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that Russia would have assisted Georgia (under Saakashvilli) if they were attacked. The tacit agreement that I thought we both were talking about was Russian support for the breakaway enclaves - this puts them in opposition to Tiblisi.

But then you say that you aren't so naive as to say that Russia is being impartial. Okay then, that settles the moral issue as being irrelevant, which it is.

All thats left is strategic concerns, then. And I am going to elect to stay on the side of the country which is, in the long term...

A. our ally, and in my opinion deservedly so

B. On the path towards democracy

C. Not a major supporter of human rights violations

I certainly admit that in this particular instance - the events of the last two weeks - Georgia and Russia are no better than one another, and in my opinion the both fired the first shot. But just as human rights and economies have improved in Eastern Europe since the old warsaw pact countries decided to ally with Europe proper and the US, I think it is in everyone's interest that other countries who willingly reach out to the democratic bloc and begin to clean up their act should be welcomed as a means to further that goal.

Russia's big-picture intentions, I believe we can agree, are to stifle these developments at all cost. I see no benefit for Russia getting its way in either this situation, or its parallels in Ukraine or Lithuania, etc. In fact, I would challenge anyone to come up with reasons why increased Russian influence along its former vassal states would be anything but a serious blow to the social benefits that those societies have had access to for the past decade.

Mick 57: A quick correction: Many countries recognize Kosovo. A partial list- United States Turkey, Albania, Austria, Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, Republic of China (Taiwan), Australia. <link>

<link>

Please also note that the United States does not unilaterally occupy or provide "peacekeeping" in Kosovo, rather there is a true multi-national military force in place, the largest contributor of troops is Germany.

I stand corrected. What I should have said, is an overwhelming delegation of U.N. members do not recognize Kosovo. Since the peacekeepers were under the OSCE which in turn is under the U.N. I would disagree with the term unilateral.

And to JW. I would agree that the Russian interest are self interest. I would disagree that they intend to stifle at all cost democracy.(which Georgia is sadly lacking, witness what Saakashvili has done to the opposition in the past)

The benefits of letting those that CHOOSE to live under the Russian flag do so are quite obvious. Although there may be some short term anger among the losers in the redrawing of allegiances in the long term it is about self determination. And isn't that what democracy is all about.

No, Anchorage in the US so the Canadian's shelling that city would be an attack on the US. No one really believes that Russia has any claim to sovereignty over South Ossentia. It is only a question of the Russians formenting separatism, by, for example, handing out the passports. Keep in mind that just because a majority of people in a local enclave would prefer to move to another country doesn't give them that right under any reasonable theory - the American civil war being a famous case in point.

By the way, what "US goals" are you referring to? The US attempts to encircle the great Russian people? Obtain a monopoly on Georgian foods? This "US goals" theory is just another red herring that people determined to apoligize for the Russian government's overbearing stupidity cling to in desperation - if there is a problem anywhere in the world why, it must be the fault of the Americans - or the Jews.

First strike? I don't recall the Geogians attacking Anchorage, I mean, Russia.

The '38 analogy has been made quite clear, and by the Russians themselves. They claim a veto over the foreign policy decisions of their independent neighbors, who indivdiually and collectively have suffered greatly under Russian rule and have much more to fear from the Russians than vice versa.

It is interesting that you find humiliating the president as "disproportionate" while considering the invasion of a country - with the streets littered with dead bodies - not disproportionate. Guess I wouldn't want to piss you off.

As of this writing, the Russians show no signs of moving out of Georgia. I really hope that do come to their senses and defuse the situation. They will think they have made their "point" and can congatulate themselves on the restraint they show. That would probably be a smart move at this point. But unfortunately, Russia rarely finds a way to choose the path that is in her own self interest.

"Selling their votes to the US" doesn't even deserve a response.